Vox Popoli

May he see his God face to face:

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning author whose books chronicled the horrors of the Soviet gulag system, has died of heart failure, his son said Monday. He was 89.

The world is a better place for the light he courageously shined on the horror house of the Soviet Union. Would that all men were as brave as Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, and that the harsh lessons he taught were better heeded by the men attempting to build the brave new worlds of tomorrow.

Football Outsiders argue that more Vikes and Broncos merit a place to the Pro Football Hall of Fame:

I’m going to assume that someone can explain to me why Jim Marshall is not in the Hall of Fame. 282 straight starts, 127 sacks (per the Vikings franchise), a key member of one of the all-time great defenses. I could go on and on, but I won’t. I really like Chuck Foreman as the unheralded precursor to Roger Craig and Marshall Faulk (he led the NFL in receptions in 1975), but the career’s too short. The Marshall omission is so ridiculous, it was tough to move on to other names. Who might you include?

I think Jim Marshall and Cris Carter are the two must-adds. Chris Doleman deserves to be there as much as any of the various modern defensive lineman whose names have been bandied about; I saw a comparison of his stats to another Hall-bound lineman – I want to say Strahan but that can’t be right – and Doleman’s stats weren’t just equal, they were better. Randle McDaniel is a possibility too, but I don’t put much faith in All-Pro selections; if they’re important than he’s a must too. I think far too much weight is put on Super Bowl wins; football is such a fundamentally team-oriented game that no single player can carry his team the way a superstar can in basketball. Great catch, yes, but no one who actually watched a lot of football in the Seventies would rather have Lynn Swann lining up wide than Cris Carter.

Speaking of Hall of Famers, I would very much like to see Brett Favre spend a year or two in a purple jersey. Having an elite quarterback is the single most important piece of the playoff puzzle, and it’s one that the Vikings presently appear to be missing. It’s possible that Tarvaris Jackson has improved significantly, we’re assured that he has by the usual suspects, but he’s still not going to be operating at the level that Favre is, even at Favre’s advanced age.

Here’s the final exam. 25 questions. If you’re able to pass this, then you can be comfortable that you have a fairly sound understanding of the events and characters that Thucydides describes in his history of the Peloponnesian War. It’s designed to be a bit easier than the Book quizzes, so don’t go overboard in looking for trick questions and so forth. This marks the end of the first Voxiversity experiment.

Take the test and be sure to let us know how you did in the comments here. It may be worth noting that discussions of the next Voxiversity subject will be somewhat tilted towards those who stuck with the program this time.

Quizzes and Final Exam

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1 to 1.115.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.116 to 2.46.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.47 to 2.103.

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Three.

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Four.

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Five.

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Six

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Seven.

The History of the Peloponnesian War Book Eight

The History of the Peloponnesian War Comprehensive Final Exam

In case it’s not abundantly clear that Richard Dawkins’s OUT campaign has failed:

Campaigners hoped to raise the raise the £23,400 necessary to buy a prominent two-week slot on a “bendy bus” by collecting £5 pledges from atheists online. They even made a mock-up photo of a bus carrying their chosen message: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life.”

The project attracted huge attention on atheist message boards and was even featured on the website of scientist and promiment atheist Richard Dawkins, but it appears that too few non-believers actually put their hands in their pockets. A specially-created website had attracted only 877 pledges when its deadline passed on Thursday, far short of the 4,678 people needed.

Such a surprise. Imagine how little they’d have raised if it was for something that the militant atheists don’t care about at all, such as helping the sick, the poor, and the hungry.

I’m pleased to let you all know that Marcher Lord Press has announced the forthcoming publication of my next novel, Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy. It’s a fantasy novel and if you’d like to read more about it, the publisher has posted an interview as well as a sample chapter at the above link. I have to admit, I haven’t been this pleased with a cover since Rowena completed her painting of Kaym and Mariel.

This is an open thread to discuss The History of the Peloponnesian War and the appendices to the Landmark edition; the final test of 25 questions will be posted tomorrow.

In other news, I’ll be doing an hour-long interview on Monday from 4-5 EST with Jerry Hughes. There is an online stream to his show, Straight Talk, if you’d like to listen.

Dana of Mamalogues demonstrates both her amazing class and astounding reading comprehension in the following email. Please note that I am posting this with permission:

1. I don’t allow anonymous comments on my blog simply because I don’t dig cowards. You’re welcome to whatever two cents, or sense, in this matter, you want so long as you own it. I always practice the same courtesy on another’s website.

2. I don’t appreciate the blatant lie that I vandalized your little Wikipedia page. I believe you tried to condescend to me about not being familiar with you, yes? Here you are actually committing your own sin. There are no “women” who write on my website, just me, and I had bigger things to handle this evening than to do whatever you are accusing me of. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology.

Not that any of us are perfect Christians, but you still prioritize your ego over Christ. At least when I screw up and do the same, I admit it.

Feel free to post this or not. If you’re going to play though; cut with the lies. It’s a lame way to try and win some BS argument.

This is quite funny coming from a woman who, as I noted previously, wrote several easily verified lies in her post and also tried to “out” my identity. Now, I don’t believe for a second that Dana vandalized the “little Wikipedia page”. It was, as I suggested in my post yesterday, almost certainly one of her regular readers or commenters. More than one, actually, as it appears that three separate attempts have been made since I responded to her yesterday. I have to admit, I find the fact that Christian mommybloggers and their readers behave almost exactly like Dawkinsian atheists when confronted with evidence of their own irrationality to be more than a little amusing.

Dana shows herself to be a cretin in accusing me of “a blatant lie”, as the reference to “those fine, upstanding women at Mamalogue” obviously encompasses Dana, her commenters and her readers. I didn’t say anything about writing, and anyways, if there are no women who write at Mamalogues except Dana, then how does she explain the various comments by the likes of Amy, Belinda, Kelli, and, of course, Karen Sugarpants. It probably escapes Dana, that she is not permitted to interpret the word “at” in an extremely narrow manner in order to accuse me of lying. It’s also a peculiar definition of anonymous that permits “MMP” but not “W”. I don’t allow anonymous comments either, as one can easily verify, but a single letter still serves successfully as an identifier.

There is no argument to win here. I don’t respect her friend and I reject her friend’s ludicrous demand for recognition and respect. Dana has not only admirably supported my case regarding both the lack of respect and the rejection, she has offered a copious amount of evidence that mommyblogging is precisely the narcissistic, brain-dead navel-gazing that those of us previously unfamiliar with it suspected it to be.

Underwater Operative notes that Mamalogue not only can’t take criticism of her friends, she can’t bear criticism of herself either:

I was just reading the comments on her blog and noticed after a refresh that the number of comments had dropped. Her blog her prerogative. It’s just funny that she felt the need to delete the comment. I hit the back button. Here’s the comment she felt needed to be deleted.

Do you know how inappropriate it is to “out” an author by giving his or her real name? Apparently not.

How do I say this gently? Women are more emotional than men, correct? In some instances this is beneficial, but this emotion can cause one to see things in a different light, especially if little or no time is given to reflect on a situation. In the instance of blogging, the lack of traffic of women’s blogs is no indication of inequality or suppression. It is an indication of a smaller level of interest in the topics written (and there’s no shame in that). For those complaining, what is your proposed solution? Force people to read blogs in which they have no interest? Do you see how irrational the whole complaint is? (I say this as a woman, so please don’t start on the ‘woman hater’ thing. It gets really old.)

As for Vox, you have two choices. Either lash out and learn nothing or glean the idea that not many people are going to care about the specifics of your life beyond friends and family and if you want a larger audience, you will have to adjust your writing accordingly. Whether man or woman, the “plight” of a blogger is the same. If bloggers want traffic, they have to write something people want to read. If you don’t want a larger audience, fine but don’t complain about it. Don’t be like some women who want not equality, but special treatment disguised as equality, which was the point of Vox’s original post.”
– By W on July 31, 2008 1:43 PM

Rule #6 – Don’t run an echo chamber. If you cannot bear to be humbled or shown to be wrong on your own blog, then you’d better not allow comments in the first place.

Interestingly enough, I received notice that those fine, upstanding women at Mamalogue are also imitating the Dawkins.Net atheists in vandalizing the amazingly accurate Wikipedia page that is theoretically about me. Here’s one of the additions made: “Many of his comments have left some wondering about the possibility of closet homosexuality or perhaps a simple case of rape fantasies fueled by anger towards his mother.”

I was under the impression that it was more the muscles, the mohawk and the flaming sword that had some wondering about my particular preferences. Now, I don’t really mind people screwing around with Wikipedia; I rather liked the old redirect to the syphilis page. Not exactly subtle, but still mildly amusing. It’s only Wikipedia, after all, where weirdos who don’t know the first thing about strangers write their biographies. Still, as one commenter there said: “Dana – way to respond with class.”

The frequent foot-targeting in Hollywood never ceases to astound me:

Waugh fans have been dismayed to learn that the forthcoming film will not stay true to the book. Sir John Mortimer, who adapted the landmark television series in the 1980s which remained faithful to the original text, is among those who have criticised the new production.

In the novel, Sebastian Flyte and Charles Ryder, played in the film by Ben Whishaw and Matthew Goode, travel to Venice to visit Sebastian’s father, Lord Marchmain. But in the new adaptation, they are joined by Sebastian’s sister, Julia (Hayley Atwell), allowing scriptwriter Jeremy Brock to develop a love triangle between the three main characters and inserting scenes which demonstrate Julia’s “sexual awakening” when she visits the Venice Carnivale.

I’ve always been partial to Merchant-Ivory and the BBC adaptation of “Brideshead Revisited” is one of the few DVDs I’ve gone out of my way to acquire. The BBC series was a beautiful and near-flawless transition from text to screen; its massive popularity is the reason that there’s a market for the film in the first place.

But, as has happened with so many science fiction classics, Hollywood producers are too arrogant to believe that a classic and hugely popular story told by a proven storyteller can’t be improved by an impromptu explosion, dinosaur attack, or sudden lesbian syndrome. But I’m not going to complain about the way in which the forthcoming “Brideshead Revisited” movie will be terrible in precisely the same way I didn’t complain about the desecration of Susan Cooper’s “The Dark is Rising” in the movie of the same name. Despite being a big fan of the latter, I never saw it and therefore have nothing to complain about.

That’s the best way to deal with these things. If it’s clear that Hollywood has messed with the basic story, don’t go to the movie. As movies based on “improved” stories fail while more faithful versions go on to massive success, the investors behind Hollywood will eventually get the message even if the idiot producers and directors don’t. What Hollywood can’t seem to grasp is that to score a big mainstream hit, you must first own your core niche. That’s the seed. If you elect to begin by blowing off your core fans in favor of chasing some ethereal mainstream appeal, you’ll achieve nothing more than sentencing your own project to failure.

Mamalogues violates Rule #1 like a serial-killing pedophile locked into a daycare center the day before he’s supposed to be put away for life:

The ripples of this extended all the way over to World Net Daily, whose columnist by the pseudonym of Vox Day (seriously, I think there were like 20 of those pseudonyms back in my junior high AOL chatroom days) – excuse me – Christian columnist Vox Day (real name Theodore Beale; he’s a rich kid and his dad was on the board at WND, which undoubtedly helped Beale to get some ink) decided to go on a rant against women with emphasis on mothers who blog and basically called us all stupid. I realize that intelligence is probably very important to a man who works “I’m in Mensa” in every biographical footnote and pick-up lines, all the while juxtaposing it next to a standard Myspace headshot replete with a hairstyle and goatee sported by every teenage male member of my Ozark family.

Now see, that was cruel. It was as shallow and tasteless as the arguments Vox Day/Theodore Beale presented against women bloggers and for that I am ashamed. Really.

(Tangent: Some time ago I read wherein Beale apologized to national socialists for further disparaging their already-besmirched name with the “femi-nazi” sobriquet. I would go so far as to say Day is acting like a “manazi.” That would be an excellent metal album title.)

Well, technically it didn’t quite make it to WND, not unless I write a column about it. Which I simply can’t imagine. It’s not a terrible beginning, but sadly unoriginal. Cruel? I laughed, I did; one hears worse from the girls in the fantasy league. Mamalogues begins exactly as all the radical lesbian feminists and militant atheists do, complete with the customary references to family, hair, money, and Mensa, but perhaps because she’s a religious mommyblogger, she fails to threaten to not have sex with me or impute irregular sexual preferences. [UPDATE – one of her commenters finally got around to the latter, so check that one off too.] And, of course, we have the requisite “outing”, which only serves to demonstrate, unsurprisingly, that she flunked the intelligence test. But, because she’s Christian, she has to feign feeling bad about it, just before launching into another attack with all the biting savagery of a toothless lamb.

By the way, “Manazi” would be a terrible name for a metal album. It sounds like “manatee”. “Mamalaogai”, on the other hand, would rock in a very Rage Against the Machine sense that will almost surely be completely lost on every mommyblogger who happens to read this post.

My other problem with Beale is a repeat of what I mentioned in my earlier graphs: I don’t walk around with a makeshift halo over my head. However, Beale apparently does. This is a guy that advertises all the Christian books he’s reading or has written, a guy who opines about politics and the merits of Christianity in his World Net Daily columns; this is a guy who positions himself in an authoritative role with regards to spirituality, a guy who lectures us on the importance of faith. So forgive me if I find it a little contradictory when he calls someone I know, a genuinely real and good person, a “lactating cow.”

You don’t speak to someone about their concern for sexism by writing about them like a sexist.

I should point out that this was on his Blogger site and not on the World Net Daily site, otherwise that probably wouldn’t help sell books, I’d imagine.

Four lies in three paragraphs, at least two of which are intentional. Impressive, especially for a lecture on Christianity. Now, I don’t know what sort of halo could possibly involve Chris fucking Rock quotes, and if she was even remotely familiar with anything I’d written, she would know that I completely reject being viewed as any sort of spiritual or theological exemplar, or even as an authority of any kind except on electronic games. Her combination of dishonesty and ignorance is further demonstrated by her strange comment about selling books. Want a book? Then download one free on the right. As for our friendly lactating cow, if you want to get dramatic and play Enjolras at the barricades, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when someone shoots at you. Now, I believe that Bad Mommy is probably a very nice woman. I have little doubt that Mamalogues is a lovely woman herself. But that doesn’t excuse them from suffering the consequences of publicly making blitheringly stupid remarks. I’m an equal-opportunity intellectual assassin.

He goes on to say how women marginalize themselves because of “hate and animosity.” I don’t disagree with this statement, yet he misses the irony completely.

I’m beginning to think I may have been too harsh on Enjolras… her manifesto was brilliant in comparison with this tripe. Mamalogues is either partially illiterate or she can’t read through her tears. I wrote absolutely nothing about women marginalizing themselves because of hate and animosity, I only pointed out that hate and animosity had nothing to do with the lack of respect shown mommybloggers and chick-bloggers. I said that they marginalize themselves due to their choice of subject matter – their own lives. There is no irony to be found in a statement I never made… but there is certainly an attempt to enlist all women in the cause of brainless, narcissistic female blogging here.

Why does this bother me? I try not to embarrass myself or my faith too much which can be really difficult for me because I have a notoriously sharp tongue and I feel that bluntness expediency in speech is more efficient. I realize that when I say I am a person of faith that I am representing a lot more here on earth than just myself. I try hard to avoid becoming like that which I detest: people like Benny Hinn and his ilk, people who praise God on Sunday but betray Him with their actions on Monday.

Talking about how spiritually righteous you are while at the same time eviscerating others does nothing to improve the stereotype that some have of Christians. It makes it harder for people to publicly admit their faith. It gives more ammunition to the jerks in high school that make fun of the kid on his way to a meeting of Christian Athletes.

And now the inevitable Appeal to Religion. Here’s a lesson for you, lady. What people can’t stomach is lies, hypocrisy, and pretense. I couldn’t stomach it myself, which was what kept me far away from church and Christians for more than two decades. It would be a lie, a monstrous lie, a lie of gargantuan proportions, for me to feign any respect whatsoever for that narcissistic demand for recognition and respect made by Bad Mommy. Dana isn’t at all interested in the truth, she desires the happy, fake, plastic niceness that allows everyone to pretend that Daddy isn’t an alcholic, Mommy didn’t get an abortion, and all the children are above average. She loves lies more than truth, which is why she tells them so readily. I challenge her to find a single assertion of being spiritually righteous anywhere in these blog archives, in the seven years of opinion columns or in any of my books.

Being a Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with being nice. And all are fallen, every single one. Some of us simply see little point in trying to hide our flaws. Now, your mileage may vary, but I happen to prefer open and snarling disagreement to the false smiles, whispers, and knives in the back that permeate so much of Churchianity.

Perhaps Beale’s zeal got ahead of his knowledge on this one: that’s not what was said in the slightest. All that was said was that women in technology would like to be treated with the same consideration as are the men. It’s interesting to me: Beale considers unfair treatment important when discussing matters o
f religion or politics; perhaps he discounts women because he’s a male and therefore can’t identify with some of what’s being discussed?

She’s lying again. I quote: “What is radical about it is that we push on, demanding to be heard, and demanding recognition of our worth as mothers, women, writers, business-people, innovators, people, against the ignorance of those who would keep us down.”

That’s demanding far more than being treated with the same consideration, in fact, being treated with precisely the same consideration as are the men is exactly what Mamalogues is complaining about here. I treated Bad Mommy’s absurd assertions in exactly the same way I treated Sam Harris’s and Richard Dawkins’s in The Irrational Atheist, she has no legitimate cause for complaint on that score. When have I ever considered unfair treatment to be important, anyhow? I’m openly and avowedly anti-equalitarian; equality is an immaterial myth far less credible than God. The only equality that conceivably exists is in the eyes of God, and one can make a credible case that it doesn’t even exist there.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I write online because I enjoy it, it helps me work through things, but most importantly, I have a living diary of my life with my children. I’d forget half of this without typing it up. Also important – I’ve connected with other mothers. I’ve found a groundswell of homeschooling resources and support.

Good for her, but she’s not demanding respect or recognition for it as Bad Mommy was. She can do whatever she wants. I neither mind nor care.

It’s the exact same as a bunch of Dungeons and Dragons nerds sitting around in Vox’s mom’s basement, drinking the Kool-Aid, combing their goatees and talking about how much they hate women. OK. That was mean. See? It takes work, ya’ll.

It’s the exact same, except of course that her example doesn’t exist. Whereas one can see “groups of narcissistic women” that “like to babble at each other and tell each other how wonderful they are” at any given coffee shop every single day, to say nothing of every mommyblog I’ve ever seen. Granted, my experience of the latter is thankfully quite limited; I’m still trying to bleach my mind from that momentary exposure to the unspeakable Dooche.

Everyone is deserving of respect until otherwise proven. Have you even read the Bible which you thump so hard? NONE of us have earned respect, yet, by faith, we are saved.

Nonsense. Given the broad and beautiful spectrum of human idiocies on display throughout the Internet, there is absolutely no logical reason to grant respect to anyone or their opinion until they have demonstrated that they merit it. As for the religious non sequitor, I merely point out that salvation!=respect.

I don’t hate women. I especially don’t hate mothers. But I will always show open contempt for those of either sex who demand that which they have not earned and who attempt to seize it through social manipulation and other passive-aggressive means. Bloggers tend to play rough on the blogosphere and if you want to be a big dog there, then you’d better learn how to take both well-earned shots as well as cheap ones without running away and crying. I must give Mamalogues her due for trying, but she’s got a long way to go before she’ll even get to Pandagon and PZ territory.

UPDATE – A Blonde Moment has a significantly more rational perspective on mommyblogging: “I blog for my own amusement. If others are likewise entertained, I’m glad. I don’t need special recognition for my “worth” as a mom, woman, writer, worker or a person. Nor do I think anyone is trying to keep me down. My vocation, or in military terms, my mission is to be Josh’s wife, Mallory’s mom, a daughter, a sister, a friend, and to do so with a cheerful attitude as Christ would have me do. I don’t need a special “Good job” or recognition from the New York Times or anyone else.”

UPDATE II – The increasingly hapless Mamalogues adds: “I’ve read him before and stopped because there were other, better political and religious writers out there who didn’t depend on daddy to get them their columns (note how he sidesteps that whole issue.”

Translation: “I tried to read it but it’s over my head so I’m sticking with the Littlest Chickenhawk.” Anyhow, it seems Mamalogues enjoys the Continental Touch and is looking for another bitch-slap. Groovie! I was a weekly columnist for the Pioneer Press and nationally syndicated by both Chronicle Features and Universal Press Syndicate long before my father had any involvement with WND. The amusing thing is that even the feminists and atheists gave up on this futile line of attack some time ago, but then, evangelical culture has always been a bit behind the times.